Developing Instant Messenger Cooperative Development

Developing Instant

Messenger Cooperative Development

Andrew BOON

Abstract

This article traces the development of Instant Messenger Cooperative Development

(IMCD)and other variations of the Cooperative Development(CD)framework as presented

in the literature to date.It describes Edge’s seminal work on CD (1992)and its origins in

person-centered approaches to psychotherapy.It also explores the expansion of the frame-

work as it is adapted to be used with groups and computer-mediated communication tools.

Finally,it shows the various uses of CD and IMCD from reflective practice and professional

teacher development perspectives to supporting the research process for post-graduate

students,teachers,and researchers alike.

1. Introduction

Instant Messenger Cooperative Development(IMCD)(Boon 2005,2007,2009)is an adaptation

of Julian Edge’s(1992,2002)Cooperative Development(CD)discourse framework that provides a

virtual option for teachers who wish to work together to explore their particular work contexts

within a non-judgmental interactional environment in which maximum space is afforded to each

individual in order for him or her to explore current thoughts,make discoveries,and determine

potential actions to move forward within his or her continuing professional development. For

colleagues and peers who may find‘meatspace’difficult or near-impossible due to work schedules,

commute times, and geographical locations, IMCD offers an alternative method of supporting

near-synchronous text-based IM communication from the comfort and ease of one’s own internet-

connected computer or smart phone,therefore providing “greater (and more flexible)access to

collegial discourse and collaboration”(Boon,2005,p.2).

This paper traces the development of IMCD as presented in the literature to date.It describes

Edge’s seminal work on CD (1992)and its origins in the person-centered approaches to psychother-

apy advocated by Rogers(1961,1980),Curran(1978),and Egan(2002)and humanistic approaches

to education voiced by Curran (1976), Stevick (1980), and Rogers & Freiberg (1994). It also

109

Toyogakuen University

NII-Electronic Library Service

examines the subsequent criticism of CD by Lansley (1994). It goes on to describe second

generation CD as the framework expands to encompass new possibilities such as group and

distance CD (Edge,2002).Third generation CD sees its users modify the framework further to be

used in line with technological advances in computer-mediated communication(Boon,2005;Edge

2006).The paper then examines the continuance of various CD/IMCD projects in works by Boon

(2007),Edge(2007),and de Sonneville(2007).Finally,a new direction is shown in Boon (2009)in

which a post-graduate student on a distance-learning course is enabled to find a focus for his

assignment highlighting the potential for utilizing IMCD to support the research process.

2.Cooperative Development:Definitions,origins,and criticisms

The CD framework forwarded by Edge in 1992 is an alternative way for teachers to work

together to reflect on and improve one’s individual professional pedagogic practice.In CD,two

teachers agree to suspend the rules of ordinary conversation for a pre-decided period of time and

interact as either ‘Speaker’or ‘Understander’.The Speaker’s role is to decide on a particular

topic for the CD session and to talk about it. The Understander then works to support the

Speaker’s exploration by maximizing the interactional space available for the Speaker to express

and develop his or her ideas during the session.Grounded in Rogerian principles(1961,1980,1994)

in which the power for a deeper level of understanding and change is seen to lie within the

individual and his or her “actualizing tendency towards growth and fulfillment”(Rogers,1980,

p.xi),the Understander’s role is to refrain from judging,advice-giving,and steering talk towards

a personal agenda but instead to listen wholly to the Speaker.Being released from the necessity

to contribute from one’s own perspective within the talk and thus,only ever half-listening to the

other person as the mind occupies itself with the formulation of a next response in order to

maintain the synchronous flow of the interaction, the Understander is freed to do nothing but

focus on understanding (Curran 1976,1978).In a CD session,the Understander shows the Speaker

unconditional positive regard (Rogers,1961)by accepting without evaluation what the Speaker

has to say and the interactional direction he or she wishes to take. The Understander works

towards an empathic understanding (Rogers, 1961) of the Speaker’s ideas and perceptions by

communicating the heart of what the Speaker is saying back to him or her.The Understander

also works to achieve a high degree of congruence(Rogers,1961),that the respect and empathy

put forward in a session is“genuine and without front and façade”(p.61).

The Speaker’s role is to reflect on,talk about,and explore an area of his or her pedagogic

practice or professional life.Through the process of articulating one’s thoughts to an Understan-

der who is making efforts to actively listen to and understand the utterances as they take shape,

Developing Instant Messenger Cooperative Development 110



it is possible for the Speaker to“bring together his or her intellectual and experiential knowledge

into (ever-increasing)coherent statements”(Edge,1992,p.62)and move through stages of height-

ened awareness regarding the particular teaching puzzle examined,making new connections and

discoveries about it, and then formulating a specific plan of action of what is to be done in

subsequent classes.The non-judgmental CD environment may help the Speaker to be empowered

to“explore all the hidden nooks and crannies of(his or her)inner and often buried experiences”

(Rogers,1961,p.34)increasing the potential for idea experimentation,previously unarticulated

self-revelations,self-discovery,and forward movement.As Stevick (1980)suggests:

The understander is providing the understandee a table top on which he can lay out some of

the things that have been all tangled in together,and untangle them,and sort them out,and

see them in a new and clearer way,and decide what he wants to do with them (p.102).

Adapted from Egan’s(2002)‘Skilled Helper’model and guide for therapeutic dialog between

helper and client,Edge(1992)goes on to describe nine cooperative skills or interactional moves

that an Understander can use in a CD session to support the Speaker’s exploration:

Attending The Understander pays close attention to his or her body language and

develops a way of working in which the Speaker can feel listened to,support

ed,and able to express him or herself in an environment free from judgement.

The Understander tries to avoid consciously or unconsciously signaling

messages of approval or disapproval that could influence the Speaker’s

particular train of thought.

-

Reflecting The Understander communicates his or her understanding of the ongoing articu

lations of the Speaker by providing carefully-timed responses which do not

interrupt the flow of the Speaker or take the Speaker into the Understander’s own

perceptual world but instead try to capture the essence of the Speaker’s develop

ing thoughts,attitudes,and emotions.Reflections provide both parties with the

opportunity to check that understanding is taking place and allows the Speaker

to hear his or her thoughts restated in a more focused and explicit way by the

Understander.If reflected incorrectly,the Speaker has the opportunity to clarify

what he or she meant. If accurate, the Speaker may be able to build from the

discourse,discover something new in a particular situation,and move towards

action.

-

-

Focusing To facilitate the exploration,the Understander may provide opportunities for the

Speaker to focus on one of the many ideas that have developed during a session

so that the Speaker may explore one particular aspect more deeply.The Under

stander avoids overtly suggesting which direction the Speaker should take but

summarizes what the Speaker has articulated thus far in order to encourage the

Speaker to try to narrow his or her focus.The Speaker can then choose to accept

an area to examine further or to continue to explore the topic in more general

terms.

-

111 Developing Instant Messenger Cooperative Development



Thematizing To help with the development of new ideas in a session, the Understander can

bring to the attention of the Speaker potential thematic links that he or she may

not have noticed.The Speaker may choose to acknowledge,explore further,or

disregard possible connections.

Challenging In the opposite move to thematizing,the Understander can bring to the attention

of the Speaker statements articulated that may conflict one another.Rather than

being used to attack the logic of the Speaker,the Understander frames questions

in a way that mirrors the words of the Speaker and challenges only in order to

assist the Speaker’s continued exploration and growth.The Speaker may choose

to acknowledge,explore further,or disregard possible contradictions.

Disclosing The Understander can share an aspect of his or her own experience only in so

much as it offers a point of comparison or contrast from which the Speaker can

clarify his or her own thoughts and assists the Speaker’s exploration.

Goal-Setting Once a discovery has been made,the Speaker continues towards the formulation

of a specific goal or plan of action that can be implemented in subsequent classes.

The Understander continues to utilize the cooperative skills to support the

Speaker.

Trialing Once a goal has been decided, the Speaker talks through the plan to decide

exactly how it is to be implemented.The Understander can invite the Speaker to

consider areas that may have been overlooked and which the Understander

regards as significant.However,contributions made by the Understander should

be expressed only in terms of the Speaker’s own views.The Understander avoids

any involvement in the decision-making process but makes the space available

for the Speaker to develop a self-determined, coherent, and workable plan of

action.

Planning The Speaker puts the finishing touches to his or her plan and signals the end of

the session.Both parties step out of their respective CD roles reverting back to

ordinary conversation in order to make arrangements for the next session and/

or provide feedback on the current session.

Although outlining a framework which may be effective for ELT teachers looking for an

alternative approach to professional development and briefly referring to a number of individuals

who have benefitted from the approach,Edge’s 1992 article does not include any authentic CD

qualitative data to support these claims.Rather,the article leaves teachers to faith whether to

try for themselves this“practical and exciting way forward”(Edge,1992,p.70)or not.

Edge(1992)states that CD “is not for everyone:its style does not suit some people”(p.60)

and as Edge predicts CD comes under criticism a few years later. In his 1994 article,Lansley

points out the inherent dangers in CD interaction as the Understander void of the ability to

challenge in any way may end up reinforcing the Speaker’s “entrenched prejudices”(p.52)by

reflecting back any potential negative utterances rather than disagreeing with them. Lansley

likens Understander talk to phatic discourse in which one person merely agrees with another to

maintain harmony in social situations.He argues that as teaching is“based on common pedagogi-




cal principles rather than purely subjective belief and experience”(p.54),that it is essential for a

listener to forward his or her opinion and engage in constructive debate in order to help a more

inexperienced teacher to change rather than continue to hold onto incorrect beliefs or prejudices.

However,Lansley’s arguments are moot as Edge (1992)states that CD is not intended to be a

substitute for“a healthy exchange of opinions”(p.62)but rather a different option for professional

interaction between “morally literate”(Lansley, 1994, p.52) peers who enjoy a symmetrical

relationship.CD is for teachers who wish to work on their self-development to understand further

how their personal conceptualisations of their unique and individual pedagogy may or may not

facilitate intended learning outcomes for their students. This pedagogy is not based on a common

method or a set of procedures but rather blended with the teacher’s own“sense of plausibility”;

an understanding of what is working or not working at any given moment realized through a

process of growth or change during repeated acts of classroom teaching and learning from these

experiences (Prabhu,1990).Thus,rather than being dangerous,CD contributes to keeping alive

continuing professional development through its potential for teachers to reflect on their class-

room teaching,make new and personal discoveries,and implement new actions in the process of

working out what is best for themselves and their students.

3.Second Generation Cooperative Development:Group and distance CD

Marking the 10th anniversary of the 1992 seminal paper on CD,Edge published the 2002 book,

Continuing Cooperative Development.This offers a revision of the original CD framework(namely

the cooperative skill of‘disclosing’is omitted from one-to-one CD),includes examples of authen-

tic CD exchanges to illustrate the Understander’s interactional moves and introduces a group

development format and various approaches to conducting CD sessions at a distance.

Group development (GD) is an extension of one-to-one CD and involves three or more

colleagues who are equal in status agreeing to work together regularly in a non-evaluative

environment to work on the individual development of a different member each session.The first

stage of GD is‘speaker-articulation’(Mann,2005).The designated Speaker for the session identifies

one topic or issue to talk about to his or her colleagues who act as multiple Understanders

reflecting back in turn their understanding of the ongoing articulation as the Speaker attempts to

fill the interactional space via“talking ideas into coherence”(Mann,2005,p.57).

The second stage of GD is ‘understander-resonance’(Mann,2005).After the CD period has

ended,each Understander is allocated floor-space to make short self-referential statements on

what the Speaker’s articulation has evoked in them.This allows Understanders time within the

GD session to explore areas pertinent to their own concerns and for the Speaker to hear different

perspectives on the particular topic raised.The Speaker should not consider these statements or




‘resonances’as suggestions or advice to follow but merely the externalizations of the Understan-

ders’own musings.

The final stage of GD is ‘speaker-review’(Mann,2005)in which the floor is returned to the

Speaker so that he or she can respond to the Understanders’resonances and provide the group

with updates of his or her final thoughts on the particular subject before bringing the session to

a close.

Both Edge(2002)and Mann (2005)argue that working in this way has“led toward a growth

of collegiality”(Edge,2002,p.158).The individual as well as the group as a whole can benefit in

terms of increased cohesion, understanding, mutual respect, and shared commitment towards

professional development (Edge,2002).The understander-resonance stage on the surface appears

to allow each Understander the opportunity to disclose and thus,project his or her own perceptual

world onto what the Speaker has said.However,Edge(2002)argues that the position of this stage

in the session,coming directly after a period of intense listening to one Speaker,helps the group

maintain a high level of attention to what each Understander articulates and although there is a

blurring of the clearly defined roles of Speaker and Understander,“the ability to offer cooperative

understanding remains massively present”(p.171).What is clear in the GD examples cited by both

Edge(2002)and Mann (2005)is that it offers a powerful extension to the one-to-one CD frame-

work;a unique approach for groups to work together on professional development that both

personalizes and maximizes the benefits for all participants.

Along with the GD variation, Continuing Cooperative Development includes a number of

chapters from authors who begin to tackle the problem of conducting sessions when geographi-

cally isolated from other teachers wishing to undertake CD.Cowie (2002)describes a 12-week

period in which he and a fellow EFL teacher utilize email to exchange messages at a distance

from one another. Within email exchanges, the Understander discourse moves are explicitly

labeled:reflecting, thematizing, challenging, and so on in order to avoid ambiguity. Meta-CD

comments and questions made outside of the clearly defined roles of Speaker and Understander

are also clearly marked.The previous email thread is copied and pasted into the email before

either Speaker or Understander responds by placing his or her new message underneath the text.

This process can then be repeated as the discourse extends and develops over a number of

exchanges.Cowie(2002)argues that the advantage of CD by email is that teachers can work on

various topics at the same time operating as either Speaker or Understander in different email

threads.Moreover,the asynchronous nature of the exchanges makes it possible for participants

to spend more time and thought in crafting their messages than is available in real-time spoken

interaction.

Bartrick (2002),on the other hand,experiments with recording the Speaker’s thoughts on a




cassette tape and then sending it to the Understander by snail mail.The Understander listens to

the recording and then“using the pause button and dubbing option on a double cassette player,

the Understander inserts comments directly into the flow of Speaker talk”(Bartrick,2002,p.230).

Similarly to CD by email,although extra-linguistic signaling is removed from the interaction and

a delay exists whilst both parties wait for the cassette to be delivered in the post (or the email

to be sent), Bartrick (2002)argues that the asynchronous nature of this modified style of CD

facilitates developing reflections on the topic at hand. Between exchanges, participants may

return to the discourse,reconsider the issues,and make notes of new lines of inquiry in a research

diary to be explored in the next recording. Moreover, unlike face-to-face CD, interaction by

cassette gives the Understander the opportunity to pause the recording,rewind,listen again,and

spend more time on crafting his or her reflecting responses to the issues that the Speaker has

articulated.

Continuing Cooperative Development (2002)contributes extra dimensions to the original 1992

framework.Edge’s GD works towards supporting the group as well as the individual.Cowie and

Bartrick’s modifications signal a move towards using the available technology and creating

innovative methods of reaching out to isolated colleagues.Edge(2002)hopes that variations of CD

will continue“to follow as long as people who live with the technology become convinced of the

usefulness of non-evaluative discourse”(p.217).

4.Third Generation CD:Computer Mediated Cooperative Development

Inspired by Cowie(2002)and Bartrick’s(2002)asynchronous versions,Boon(2005)introduces

Instant Messenger Cooperative Development (IMCD), a near-synchronous text based format

allowing users a convenient means for CD interaction via exchanging instant messages online.

Boon (2005)states that as teachers often work:

In isolation from their colleagues behind a closed classroom door,we are left completely

alone to make sense of the many fragmented and chaotic thoughts,feelings,opinions,beliefs,

doubts and questions that arise from our teaching experiences (p.38).

By connecting together within a virtual interactional environment, it increases the options for

teachers to undertake CD work with anyone,anywhere in the world,at any time to facilitate and

support each other’s reflections and investigations of classroom teaching.Moreover,the mode of

online interaction lends itself to reflective practice due to its ‘disinhibition effect’(Suler,2003).

Individuals may be more willing to open up and disclose their thoughts in cyberspace than in

face-to-face interaction.




Boon (2005)outlines how to download the relevant instant messaging (IM) software, find

collaborators,and get started with IMCD.Once the IMCD session begins,the Speaker takes the

floor by typing and sending text messages within a chat window.Attending or social presence is

established via both Speaker and Understander being able to see when the other person is typing

a message via a notification message at the bottom of the chat window.Turn-taking is facilitated

by the use of a turn-change signal.When the Speaker wishes to relinquish the floor so that the

Understander can reflect his or her understanding of the developing talk,the Speaker types the

agreed handover cue:“Ok?”.This eliminates instances of over-typing when one person has their

turn at talk.It also avoids overlapping discourse in the chat window.Further online attending

needs are described such as explaining ‘silence’or instances of non-typing via textualizing what

would otherwise be non-verbal cues in face-to-face interaction (e.g. thinking...), explaining

departure from the computer (e.g.just getting a glass of water),and seeking permission to take

the floor in order to clarify(e.g.Can I just ask...?).As with Cowie(2002)and Bartrick’s (2002)

asynchronous CD,the text-based format allows both Speaker and Understander greater time to

formulate their articulations.For the Speaker,“online communication…is highly conducive to

reflection...since to clarify writing,individuals must clarify thinking”(McMahon,1997,p.17)as he

or she works to craft a cohesive and coherent text message that can be understood clearly by the

other person.For the Understander,IM creates a permanent record of the interaction and the

ability to scroll back through the discourse to review the points that have been made“rather than

having to rely entirely on one’s memory”(Bartrick,2002,p.234).Additionally, at the end of a

session,the text can be saved and printed out to read again at a later date.

Boon (2005)includes extracts from IMCD sessions to illustrate the adaption of face-to-face

CD to IMCD and the issues this raises only.However,Edge (2006)examines how Speaker talk

develops in Computer-Mediated Cooperative Development (CMCD) environments and how

Speaker discoveries are aided by the Understander and non-judgmental environment established.

Having utilized member-checking to check the validity of his interpretations,Edge(2006)presents

“the data that appear most explicitly to have been crucial to Speakers, as viewed from a CD

perspective”(p.211).The first example describes two teachers working on professional develop-

ment via CD by email or what Edge now terms as‘EMCD’and documents the Speaker’s feelings

whilst attempting to create an annual workplan for his department.The Understander helps the

Speaker to focus on personal traits of seeking perfection in his work and a tendency to overcom-

plicate the task at hand to overcompensate for the“fear of being found out as not good enough”

(Edge, 2006, p.216). Here, the Speaker acknowledges the Understander’s reflection moves as

helping the Speaker to achieve a powerful self-discovery of needing to perceive assigned tasks as

goals to be completed rather than as problems which often turn into“a source of anxiety”(Edge,




2006,p.215).

In the second example,Edge(2006)describes an IMCD session in which the Speaker explores

a teaching dilemma of dealing with multi-level students in a particular English class.The Speaker

is able to reflect on the strategies he has attempted to make one low-level student feel more

comfortable and is able to discover and trial a new approach to classroom management to try in

the next lesson. In follow-up emails, the Speaker states that the actual discovery or “eureka

moment”(Boon, 2003)occurs between the typing of a stream of sentences to respond to the

Understander’s preceding reflection move:

Some words that have stood out are: comfortable, uncomfortable, mood, supportive,

confidence.Are they at all significant?ok (Edge,2006,p.220).

and is a culmination of thoughts inspired by that move.

The examples of these successful discoveries via two alternative CMCD mediums help to

support the claims of the “facilitative power”(Edge, 2006, p.225) CD has for professional

development with each published CD journey adding a layer of possibilities and argument for its

wider use in the profession.

5.Continuing CD and IMCD

Edge(2006)invites“more detailed investigation of CMCD”(p.225),however,returns to the

face-to-face CD framework in his 2007 description of an action research project to set up a

community of CD reflective practitioners amongst teachers working in the Adult Migrant English

Programme(AMEP),although briefly mentioning IMCD and including a short extract from an

online session.Mainly reiterating what CD is,the“brief article can give only a taste of the CD

process”(Edge 2007,p.15)in action.Nevertheless,it does set out to encourage others to try CD

and contributes to the growing body of work on the use of non-judgmental discourse in the

workplace.

De Sonneville (2007),also utilizing the face-to-face CD framework, reports on an in-house

teacher development program and describes a teacher’s movement within a series of CD conversa-

tions from an initial stage of resistance regarding the video-recording of her lessons to self-

exploration,increased awareness,and discovery about aspects of her teaching leading ultimately

to a transformation in her teaching behavior.Through her experiences of this teacher develop-

ment program,De Sonneville (2007)argues that the ability to participate in learning conversa-

tions within non-judgmental interactional space is an essential skill for teachers to acquire to

facilitate learning and development.




Boon (2007)returns to an exploration of IMCD discourse as a means of overcoming “the

silent barrier that so often separates teachers”(Oprandry,Golden,& Shiomi,1999,p.149)in order

to open up channels in which teachers can communicate with each other about pedagogy.Citing

qualitative data from a questionnaire,Boon (2007)argues that the perceived opportunity to talk

to other colleagues is a key factor in whether teachers feel isolated or not. Boon (2007) then

describes an IMCD session between himself as Understander and a Japanese teacher as Speaker

in which the Speaker is able to examine and work through a teaching puzzle, reach a self-

realization about student privacy issues in a particular writing task and develop a plan of action

in which students will approve the excerpts that can be read out in the follow-up class.The article

goes towards providing additional description of how talk evolves in IMCD:

Building bridges between what is known explicitly and implicitly and what may be poten-

tially discovered through the course of an online session (Boon,2007,p.13).

Although not alluded to in the article, it also demonstrates IMCD transcending cultures and

operating successfully between native and non-native speakers of a language.

6. IMCD:New directions

Boon (2009)signals a new direction for IMCD by using the framework to support distance

learning students via the provision of online space to articulate thoughts on one’s current research

in a non-judgmental environment,make discoveries,and formulate plans of what is to be done to

move forward with individual projects.Although achieving a very low response rate to an online

questionnaire, Boon (2009) argues that respondents on a distance learning Master’s course in

TESOL desire more opportunities to talk through their research ideas and current thinking with

tutors or other course participants but are often isolated from “this valuable route for ideas

development”(Boon,2009,p.57).The article provides an analysis of an IMCD session in which a

course participant is having difficulty in establishing a focus for an ‘Analysis of Written Dis-

course’module assignment.Through examining his feelings,pondering possible next steps,and

shifting prevailing ideas,the Speaker is enabled to determine a focus for his research.Although

being initially skeptical about IMCD,the Speaker accepts the usefulness of this different mode of

interaction and realizes“that it is possible to reach a conclusion on your own”(Boon,2009,p.62).

Requiring more evidence for the claims made,Boon (2009)states that the session“provides only

a brief glimpse of the potential of IMCD interaction within distance learning courses”(p.62)and

calls for further research to be done in this area.




7.Conclusion

As with its users who have developed professionally as a result of participating in sessions,

CD has continued to move forward from Edge’s original 1992 framework.From CD,GD,EMCD

to IMCD,its many variations provide increased possibilities for professionals to come together

to reflect on and improve their particular practice.IMCD as an online tool for supporting distance

learning and on-campus students as well as teacher-researchers via non-judgmental discourse

whilst undertaking individual research projects offers an exciting direction forward for CD.Thus,

further research needs to be done to determine the ways IMCD is utilized by its users and to what

extent it helps facilitate the research process.Through this research,it is hoped that IMCD can

go on to provide a useful and alternative means of peer collaboration for students and researchers

across all disciplines.

References

Bartrick,J.(2002).CD by cassette.In J.Edge,Continuing cooperative development (pp.230-236).Michigan:

University of Michigan Press.

Boon,A.(2003).On the road to teacher development:Awareness, discovery and action.The Language

Teacher,27(12),3-8.

Boon,A.(2005).Is there anybody out there?Essential Teacher,2(2):38-41.

Boon,A.(2007). Building bridges:Instant Messenger Cooperative Development.The Language Teacher,

31(12),9-13.

Boon,A.(2009).I can see clearly now.Modern English Teacher,18(1),56-64.

Cowie,N. (2002). CD by email. In J. Edge,Continuing cooperative development. (pp.225-229). Michigan:

University of Michigan Press.

Curran,C.(1976).Counselling and psychotherapy:The pursuit of values.Illinois:Apple River Press.

Curran,C.(1978).Understanding:An essential ingredient in human belonging.Illinois:Apple River Press.

De Sonneville,J.(2007).Acknowledgement as a key to teacher learning.ELT Journal 61(1):55-62.

Edge,J.(1992).Cooperative development.ELT Journal,46(1):62-70.

Edge,J.(2002).Continuing cooperative development.Michigan:University of Michigan Press.

Edge,J.(2006).Computer-mediated cooperative development:Non-judgmental discourse in online environ-

ments.Language Teaching Research 10(2):205-227.

Edge,J.(2007).Developing the community of practice in the AMEP.Prospect 22(1):3-18.

Egan, G. (2002). The skilled helper: A problem management and opportunity development approach to

helping.California:Brooks/Cole.

Lansley,C.(1994).Collaborative development:An alternative to phatic discourse and the art of Coopera-

tive Development.ELT Journal,48(1):50-56.

McMahon,T.(1997).From isolation to interaction?Network-based professional development and teacher

communication.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-

tion,Chicago,IL,March.




Mann, S. (2005).The development of discourse in a discourse of development: A case study of a group

constructing a new discourse (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Aston University,Birmingham,U.K.

Oprandy,R.,Golden,L.& Shiomi,K.(1999).Teachers talking about teaching:Collaborative conversations

about an elementary ESL class.In J.Gebhard& R.Oprandy(Eds.),Language teaching awareness (pp.

149-171).Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Prabhu,N.(1990).There is no best method― Why?TESOL Quarterly,24(2):161-176.

Rogers,C.(1968).On becoming a person.Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers,C.(1980).A way of being.Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers,C.& Freiberg,H.(1994).Freedom to learn.New York:Merrill.

Stevick,E.(1980).Teaching languages:A way and ways.Massachusetts:Newbury House Publishers Inc.

Suler,J.(2003).The psychology of cyberspace.Retrieved 9 October 2010 from

＜http://www-usr.rider.edu/suler/psycyber.html＞




Developing Instant Messenger Cooperative Development

Education

Transcript of Developing Instant Messenger Cooperative Development